Condonation of refiling delay refused where repeated defects, lack of diligence and vague explanations defeated the appeal against resolution plan app...
Page of 4807
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
3981 to 4000 of 96136 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
ITAT held that revision under section 263 was unsustainable because the DPCO liability for the relevant year had already been treated as an ascertained liability, and the Assessing Officer's acceptance of that position was a plausible view. The revisional authority proceeded on an factual premise, assuming the DPCO dispute had been settled by the Supreme Court and treating the amounts as bank guarantees, whereas the dispute remained pending before the High Court and the Supreme Court proceeding concerned a different matter. As the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the revisional order was set aside and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
ITAT held that revision under section 263 was unsustainable because the DPCO liability for the relevant year had already been treated as an ascertained liability, and the Assessing Officer's acceptance of that position was a plausible view. The revisional authority proceeded on an factual premise, assuming the DPCO dispute had been settled by the Supreme Court and treating the amounts as bank guarantees, whereas the dispute remained pending before the High Court and the Supreme Court proceeding concerned a different matter. As the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, the revisional order was set aside and the assessee's appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
